[HOLD for payment 2024-08-09] [$250] Approved expenses are showing pinned expenses with RBR

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email [email protected] to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number:
Reproducible in staging?: needs reproduction
Reproducible in production?: needs reproduction
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @dubielzyk-expensify
Slack conversation: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1720606818055389

Action Performed:

1. Created expenses with tags departments
2. The report was approved
3. After a while Tags Departments does not exist or deleted
4. Log in to the app
5. Observe the LHN

Expected Result:

Approved expenses shouldn't have an RBR red dot in the LHN, nor should the expense be pinned.

Actual Result:

Approved expenses are showing with RBR red dot in the LHN, and the expense is pinned.

Workaround:

unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01b843922542221f31
• Upwork Job ID: 1811554062884646329
• Last Price Increase: 2024-07-19
• Automatic offers:
• situchan | Reviewer | 103243092
• dominictb | Contributor | 103243093

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @trjExpensify

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @trjExpensify (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[trjExpensify]

confirming in thread: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C049HHMV9SM/p1720606818055389

Seems weird Jon hasn't been paid since Jan 2024. 🤔

[trjExpensify]

Alright, Jon confirmed the history doesn't contain any previous reimbursement reportAction. The report was only approved on Jan 27th.

[trjExpensify]

I can repro this pretty easily.

1. Enable "category required" on the workspace
2. Submit a couple of expenses without categories
3. Approve the expense report
4. Observe the two expenses remain pinned in the LHN with a red dot

I took it further to pay the expense report and the red dots and pinning are removed when paid, which we expect:

CC: @JmillsExpensify I think we put this one in #wave-control as violations polish. Putting it there, but let me know if you disagree with that.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01b843922542221f31

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @situchan (External)

[dominictb]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Approved expenses are showing with RBR red dot in the LHN, and the expense is pinned.

What is the root cause of that problem?

In

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 5388 in 58e2575

if (isSettled(IOUReportID)) {

, we check only if IOUReport is settled to not show the violations. So when the report is approved but not settled, it will still show violations and RBR.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Update

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Line 5388 in 58e2575

if (isSettled(IOUReportID)) {

so that it also early returns if the IOU report has been approved, we can use isReportApproved for this.

When using isReportApproved here, make sure to use toString like

if (isSettled(IOUReportID) || isReportApproved(IOUReportID?.toString())) {

Because IOUReportID could be number (BE data) while we're expecting string here. Ideally though, the back-end should be fixed to have IOUReportID as string.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Add !isReportApproved condition here

App/src/components/LHNOptionsList/OptionRowLHNData.tsx

Line 38 in 58e2575

const shouldDisplayViolations = canUseViolations && ReportUtils.shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations(fullReport, transactionViolations, parentReportAction);

(below is not needed according to this)
Additional:

so I'd expect the RBR on the expense report here.

As of now the expense report will not have the RBR in this case, if we want the RBR to show there, we need to update here to check if it's a "REPORTPREVIEW" then find all transaction threads of that IOU report, if any of those transaction threads have shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations true, return true in shouldDisplayTransactionThreadViolations for the IOU report.

[situchan]

@trjExpensify we wanna remove RBR from transaction detail reports (1, 3) in LHN but still show RBR in expense report (2)?

[trjExpensify]

Yeah, in this case, my report has failed to export after being approved (the state in which we export if you aren't paying in Expensify) and that's something I need to fix in order to export to QuickBooks successfully, so I'd expect the RBR on the expense report here.

[melvin-bot]

@trjExpensify, @situchan Whoops! This issue is 2 days overdue. Let's get this updated quick!

[trjExpensify]

@situchan what do you think of the proposal?

[melvin-bot]

@trjExpensify, @situchan Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[situchan]

updating today

[situchan]

@dominictb I am still seeing RBR after replacing isSettled with isReportApproved

[melvin-bot]

📣 It's been a week! Do we have any satisfactory proposals yet? Do we need to adjust the bounty for this issue? 💸

[dominictb]

@dominictb I am still seeing RBR after replacing isSettled with isReportApproved

@situchan When using isReportApproved here, make sure to use toString like

if (isSettled(IOUReportID) || isReportApproved(IOUReportID?.toString())) {

Because IOUReportID could be number (BE data) while we're expecting string here. Ideally though, the back-end should be fixed to have IOUReportID as string.

Let me know if that works!

[dominictb]

Proposal updated with additional notes

[melvin-bot]

@trjExpensify, @situchan Eep! 4 days overdue now. Issues have feelings too...

[melvin-bot]

📣 @situchan 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Reviewer role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job

[melvin-bot]

📣 @dominictb 🎉 An offer has been automatically sent to your Upwork account for the Contributor role 🎉 Thanks for contributing to the Expensify app!

Offer link
Upwork job
Please accept the offer and leave a comment on the Github issue letting us know when we can expect a PR to be ready for review 🧑‍💻
Keep in mind: Code of Conduct | Contributing 📖

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 9.0.15-9 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: not show RBR in LHN for approved report #46213

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-08-09. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @situchan requires payment automatic offer (Reviewer)
• @dominictb requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@situchan] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@situchan] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@situchan] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@situchan] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@situchan] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@trjExpensify] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[trjExpensify]

Checklist time!

[techievivek]

Gentle bump @situchan

[melvin-bot]

@trjExpensify, @techievivek, @situchan, @dominictb Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[situchan]

• The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: Fix - Don't show RBR on the LHN for transaction threads with violations if the report has already been reimbursed/settled #37767
• The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/37767/files#r1714194625
• A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion: N/A

Regression Test Proposal

1. Create an expense with violation (i.e. no category or no tag)
2. Approve the report
3. Go to transaction detail
4. Observe the LHN
5. Verify that report doesn't have an RBR red dot in the LHN and isn't pinned

[trjExpensify]

Payment summary as follows:

• $250 to @situchan for the C+ review
• $250 to @dominictb for the fix

Paid!